Shit sells

Cloaca is a giant machine that makes shit. At one end of the machine, they pour 2.6 gallons of water and a meal from a fancy SoHo restaurant. 27 hours and 33 feet later, a nozzle squirts out a well-formed piece of crap.

Cloaca is a computerized mechanical system designed to mimic the human digestive process. The machine, which eats better than the majority of us, chews the food using a meat grinder and a garbage disposal, then passes it through six reactor chambers that use various chemicals to do the job of a digestive system.

At 2:30 PM every day a crowd gathers, and the machine dutifully drops a shit onto a conveyor belt. The crowd cheers. Hooray for shit.

Created by Belgian artist Wim Delvoye, Cloaca harks back past Piero Manzoni's Merda d'Artista to Marcel Duchamp's 1917 Fountain -- a urinal placed on a pedestal, considered to be art only because it was in the museum's gallery and not its bathroom. Duchamp got us to question the meaning of "art" -- was something art because it was beautiful or meaningful, or was something art simply because a museum said so?

Or, to put it another way -- why is it art when this machine shits on a conveyor belt in a museum? And why don't the cops think its art when I take a shit on the sidewalk outside the museum?

As Duchamp teaches us, there are two ways to look at Cloaca: Cloaca is shit that is art, or Cloaca is shit that is shit.

As shit art, Cloaca has engendered some important thinking. But as shit shit, Cloaca has played another role: making fools of the literati. From the outsider's perspective, it's pretty funny to watch a bunch of book-learnin' types waiting breathlessly for shit, and then applauding when it arrives. Cloaca makes the wildest stereotypes of intellectual snobs a complete reality.

Today one of the turds made by the Cloaca machine was auctioned for €7,785, it was estimated to sell for between €5,000 - €7,000.

Is it art or shit? I think artist Wim Delvoye has a point (in the video) with trying to raise awareness about our digestive system, on the other hand I can't help but think he's a coprophilic hipster and this is just another example of the ludicracy of modern art.

Its not the subject matter that makes it pointless modern art. Its the fact that there is no actual artistic content. The creator has to build up a long winded explaination about why the piece has any meaning or importance because the piece itself communicates nothing.

Google "Odd Nerdrum" for example: Regardless of the subject matter, you can plainly see in various works that he knows how to paint.

compared again to someone like Kazimir Malevich who obviously cant paint that well so he uses abstract art and intellectual justifications to compensate for it.

Kinda like how most blackmetal acts use minimalism as an excuse for incompetence.

This is not art, but it is a crude method of displaying how the human digestive system works for those who are interested in such trivial aspects of our biology. It's just as much art as a textbook. Given that doctors already know how the digestive system works, though, this is obviously a populist invention -- whether art, science, or both -- and needs to be viewed as such. Besides, why is there focus on the final product, rather than on the overall process? Modernity = unflinching goals, regardless of method or process. It's how bureaucracy develops, also.

Whether or not this machine counts as art, it made me laugh, and has in so doing had more of an effect on me than, well, the vast majority of artists to have ever existed.

Modern Art today is basically an exercise in shock value. If you create something that makes people stop and go "wut", then you're an artist. Whether or not that counts as art is debatable, but actually managing to shock people in an intellectual scene saturated with obscenity, nudity and violence takes a certain degree of talent.

it would seem to me that pieces like this and the Delvoye are meant to take the piss and not present revealing insights into the functionality of the human digestive system. their worth is not predicated on the ability to paint - possibly the most ludicrous metric used to assess the value of art courtesy of this thread - because they aren't paintings. so many people are critical of modern art, labeling it as shit, and now you've got a machine in a gallery making shit. it's not a terribly deep concept, but it seems to have been missed by most in here.

whenever people commit the fallacy of establishing absolutist rules about art such as: "Regardless of the subject matter, you can plainly see in various works that he knows how to paint," I am led to wonder whether they're appreciating any art because it resonates personally or because it conforms to a prescribed set of rules. I would imagine on a similar basis one could conclude that Lady Gaga is the apogee of the musical art form.

it would seem to me that pieces like this and the Delvoye are meant to take the piss and not present revealing insights into the functionality of the human digestive system. their worth is not predicated on the ability to paint - possibly the most ludicrous metric used to assess the value of art courtesy of this thread - because they aren't paintings. so many people are critical of modern art, labeling it as shit, and now you've got a machine in a gallery making shit. it's not a terribly deep concept, but it seems to have been missed by most in here.

whenever people commit the fallacy of establishing absolutist rules about art such as: "Regardless of the subject matter, you can plainly see in various works that he knows how to paint," I am led to wonder whether they're appreciating any art because it resonates personally or because it conforms to a prescribed set of rules. I would imagine on a similar basis one could conclude that Lady Gaga is the apogee of the musical art form.

it would seem to me that pieces like this and the Delvoye are meant to take the piss and not present revealing insights into the functionality of the human digestive system. their worth is not predicated on the ability to paint - possibly the most ludicrous metric used to assess the value of art courtesy of this thread - because they aren't paintings. so many people are critical of modern art, labeling it as shit, and now you've got a machine in a gallery making shit. it's not a terribly deep concept, but it seems to have been missed by most in here.

whenever people commit the fallacy of establishing absolutist rules about art such as: "Regardless of the subject matter, you can plainly see in various works that he knows how to paint," I am led to wonder whether they're appreciating any art because it resonates personally or because it conforms to a prescribed set of rules. I would imagine on a similar basis one could conclude that Lady Gaga is the apogee of the musical art form.

Apparently applying related concepts in different contexts is very difficults? Its not about prescribed rules, its about skill. Bach is great because of his technique, not because every one of his songs is about jerking off about how great god is. If you think art is purely about the basic communication of ideas you're either a writer or a moron.

it would seem to me that pieces like this and the Delvoye are meant to take the piss and not present revealing insights into the functionality of the human digestive system. their worth is not predicated on the ability to paint - possibly the most ludicrous metric used to assess the value of art courtesy of this thread - because they aren't paintings. so many people are critical of modern art, labeling it as shit, and now you've got a machine in a gallery making shit. it's not a terribly deep concept, but it seems to have been missed by most in here.

whenever people commit the fallacy of establishing absolutist rules about art such as: "Regardless of the subject matter, you can plainly see in various works that he knows how to paint," I am led to wonder whether they're appreciating any art because it resonates personally or because it conforms to a prescribed set of rules. I would imagine on a similar basis one could conclude that Lady Gaga is the apogee of the musical art form.

Apparently applying related concepts in different contexts is very difficults? Its not about prescribed rules, its about skill. Bach is great because of his technique, not because every one of his songs is about jerking off about how great god is. If you think art is purely about the basic communication of ideas you're either a writer or a moron.

an ad hominem won't mask the flimsiness of your "point". there are no hard and fast rules where art is concerned, whether they regard a mastery of technique or communication. if you want black & white assessments of a subject, you're best sticking to something that doesn't involve critical thought like pop music or sports.